JUDGMENT : G. NARENDAR, J. 1. M.F.A. No. 103193/2015 arises out of L.A.C. No. 18/2013 and is preferred by the claimant. MFA No. 101872/2016 is preferred by the beneficiary, as against the aforesaid award. 2. MFA No. 103251/2015 is preferred by the claimant in LAC No. 16/2013 and MFA No. 101877/2016 is preferred by the beneficiary. 3. MFA No. 103252/2015 is preferred by the claimant in LAC No. 15/2013 and MFA No. 101876/2016 is preferred by the beneficiary. 4. All the six appeals are taken up for disposal by this common judgment, as the appeals are canvassed and addressed on similar grounds. 5. The facts involved in the appeal. The lands comprised in Sy. Nos. 139, 128/4 and 128/6, are all situated in Gangavathi-2 Village measuring 19 guntas, 2 acres and 1 acre 35 guntas, respectively and were acquired for the purpose of laying a new railway line on the Mehaboob Nagar-Munirabad route. The notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act" for short) came to be Gazetted on 30-7-2009 and 24-6-2010, respectively. The Special Land Acquisition Officer ("SLAO" for short) passed an award on 5-12-2011 fixing the market value of the lands at Rs. 1,90,778/- per acre. The SLAO placed reliance on the sale statistics pertaining to the agricultural lands in and around Gangavathi Village for the years 2006-07,; 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and taking the average of the sale statistics, concluded the market value. 6. The claimants aggrieved by the market value fixed, protested the same and filed their protest petition, invoking Section 18(1) of the Act on 16-3-2013. The notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is dated 21-1-2013. The protest petition is preferred within the period of limitation. On reference of the petition filed under Section 18(1), the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gangavathi registered the same as LAC Nos. 18/2013, 16/2013 and 15/2013 and proceeded to hear them. Thereafter, it was pleased to partly allow the claims by enhancing the market value in LAC No. 18/2013 from Rs. 1,90,778/- per acre to Rs. 18,75,000/- per acre on the ground that the land in Sy. No. 139 possesses "commercial potential" and in respect of LAC Nos. 16/2013 and 15/2013, the Reference Court was pleased to enhance the market value from Rs. 1,90,778/- per acre to Rs. 16,50,000/- per acre, on the ground that the lands in Sy. Nos. 1,90,778/- per acre to Rs. 18,75,000/- per acre on the ground that the land in Sy. No. 139 possesses "commercial potential" and in respect of LAC Nos. 16/2013 and 15/2013, the Reference Court was pleased to enhance the market value from Rs. 1,90,778/- per acre to Rs. 16,50,000/- per acre, on the ground that the lands in Sy. Nos. 128/4 and 128/6 possess "non-agricultural potential". 7. It is pertinent to note that in all about 671 acres and 14 guntas of land were notified under Section 17 of the Act and acquired for the purpose of laying the new railway line. 8. The claimant in LAC No. 18/2013 has produced and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.123. The claimants in LAC No. 16/2013 produced and got marked five documents as Exs. P.137 to P.143 and the claimant in LAC No. 15/2013 produced three documents and got them marked as Exs. P.145 to P.147. 9. The claimant in LAC No. 18/2013 got himself examined as P.W. 1 and the husband of the claimant in LAC No. 15/2013 is examined as P.W. 5. P.W. 7, a valuer has been examined on behalf of the claimants to demonstrate the non-agricultural potential of the lands and their market value. 10. The Reference Court after assigning various reasons to reject all the exhibits, proceeded to place reliance on Ex. R.1 and Ex. P.110 to P.115 to determine the market value at Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre. Exs. P.110 to P.115 are proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, pursuant to an exercise undertaken to determine and conclude a consensual market price in the grama sabha. By the said exercise, the market value of wet/irrigated lands has been fixed at Rs. 15,00,000/-. The market value of the lands irrigated by bore-well has been fixed at Rs. 8,00,00/- and in respect of dry lands, the market value has been fixed at Rs. 6,00,000/-. In respect of converted lands, the consensual price has been fixed at Rs. 1,500/- per square feet for housing sites, where the guideline value has been fixed at Rs. 1,050/- and for other converted lands, it has been fixed at Rs. 500/-. 11. The Reference Court placing reliance on the consensual price proceeded to add another 25% for the land comprised in Sy. No. 139, as it is abutting a converted land and 10% to the consent award in respect of lands comprised in Sy. Nos. 1,050/- and for other converted lands, it has been fixed at Rs. 500/-. 11. The Reference Court placing reliance on the consensual price proceeded to add another 25% for the land comprised in Sy. No. 139, as it is abutting a converted land and 10% to the consent award in respect of lands comprised in Sy. Nos. 128/4 and 128/6. The reasoning for adding only 10% in respect of the other lands comprised in Sy. Nos. 128/4 and 128/6 is that the same lies towards Gangavathi-Sindhanur road and that the pace of development on the Gangavathi-Sindhanur road is very slow and that the lands comprised in Sy. No. 128/6 do not possess "NA potential" and that the market value is enhanced only on the ground that, they are situated within the municipal limits of Gangavathi town. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants would vehemently contend that the Reference Court has gravely erred in not appreciating the "NA potential" of the three lands and would contend the very fact that the lands were brought within the town limits of Gangavathi municipality, is sufficient to demonstrate the "NA potential" and "commercial potential" of the lands. She would contend that the "NA potential" of the land in Sy. No. 139 is demonstrated by the mere fact that two acres out of the said land had been converted way back on 6-6-1994 for industrial purpose. That the lands have been brought within the municipal limits and there is a great demand for housing and commercial sites. That Gangavathi municipality is rapidly developing municipal area and hence there is a high demand for land. She would submit that the Reference Court erred in brushing aside the voluminous material placed on record to demonstrate the potentiality and it was impermissible for the Reference Court to place reliance only on Exs. P.110 to P.115 for the purpose of evaluating the market value of the acquired lands. 13. She would take the Court through the various exhibits, particularly Exs. P.7 to P.14, being the photos of the rice mill, the conversion order permitting use of two acres for non-agricultural use in Sy. No. 139, the industrial licence, building plan, layout plan and construction plan, in that order. She would contend that the evidentiary value of these documents have not been properly appreciated in the right perspective and the Court ought to have adopted the rate at Rs. No. 139, the industrial licence, building plan, layout plan and construction plan, in that order. She would contend that the evidentiary value of these documents have not been properly appreciated in the right perspective and the Court ought to have adopted the rate at Rs. 2,200/- or Rs. 1,050/-, being the sale value of a commercial site and the sale value of a housing site respectively. 14. She would nextly place reliance on Ex. P.15, the conversion order permitting conversion to an extent of 33 guntas in Sy. No. 153/2 for the purpose of setting up a hospital. She would next invite the attention of the Court to Exs. P.121 and P.122, which is titled as the proposed land use map for the period 2021. Ex. P.122 is the ward map of the municipality and Sy. No. 139 is shown to be situated in Ward No. 10. She would further submit that the lands in Sy. Nos. 153, 140, 116, 157, 150, 156, 139, 121, 120, 113, 123 and 138 are all lands converted for non-agricultural purposes. 15. The learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants would further take the Court through Exs. P.15, P.19, P.22, P.23, P.27, P.33, P.36 and P.37, being proceedings of the Competent Authority permitting use of the agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes. She would further invite the attention of the Court to Exs. P.38 to P.41 being photos of the school. She would take the Court through Exs. P.45 and P.46 being the photos of tractor showroom and Ex. P.44, being the conversion order in respect of Sy. No. 116, dated 2-4-1982. Ex. P.47 and Ex. P.50 are conversion orders of Sy. No. 116/1/A2, dated 8-2-2009 and Sy. Nos. 157/1 and 157/2, dated 15-4-2010, Ex. P.57 is the photo of Maruti Car showroom, Exs. P.59 and P.60 are photos of Swaraj Agro Industry in Sy. No. 150/2, Ex. P.62 is another conversion order, Ex. P.67 is the registration certificate dated 23-9-2006 of M/s. N.R. Industries, Ex. P.70 is the photo of Auto Nagar, apparently a complex of automobile repair shops. Exs. P.71, P.73 and P.74 dated respectively as 27-5-1993 and 19-3-2002, are proceedings of the Municipal Council, Gangavathi, relating to allotment of sites of various dimensions in Auto Nagar. The Ex. P.67 is the registration certificate dated 23-9-2006 of M/s. N.R. Industries, Ex. P.70 is the photo of Auto Nagar, apparently a complex of automobile repair shops. Exs. P.71, P.73 and P.74 dated respectively as 27-5-1993 and 19-3-2002, are proceedings of the Municipal Council, Gangavathi, relating to allotment of sites of various dimensions in Auto Nagar. The Ex. P.75, dated 16-8-2000 is a letter written by the Municipal Commissioner, to the Superintending Engineer (Electrical), O & M Division, KPTCL, Munirabad, requesting for electrification of Auto Nagar, along with the same a list detailing the name of the allottee, plot number, dimension, site value (sale price) and the amount paid and the balance amounts is also annexed. The highest site value noted therein is Rs. 12,600/- for a site of dimension 30 X 60 feet. Exs. P.76 and P.77 are again photos of a restaurant/dhaba. Ex. P.79 is the conversion order pertaining to Sy. No. 121. Exs. P.107 to P.109 are sale deeds in respect of sites formed in Sy. No. 27 and are dated 31-10-2008. 16. The learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants has filed into Court several rulings of both the Apex Court and this Court, but has placed reliance on some of them. At the outset, Counsel for the appellant would place reliance on ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust and Another v. Vithal Rao and Others 1973 (3) SCR 39 , AIR 1973 SC 689 and would canvass that there can be no discrimination between two owners whose lands are equally situated. This contention is canvassed to convince the Court to adopt the market value as determined by a Coordinate Bench in MFA No. 25482/2012, disposed of on 25-11-2019. The said acquisition pertains to a land situated in Mahalingapura Village in Mudhol Taluk and acquired for the construction of 220 KV station. Further, the reasons for enhancement are found at para 8, where the claimant has been able to demonstrate the development surrounding the acquired land. That apart, it was demonstrated therein, that the land covered under the exemplar sale deed, was situated within one kilometer distance from the acquired land. She would submit that in the instant case also, Auto Nagar and the developed part of the municipality is within one kilometer of the claimant's lands and hence the sale value as shown in Exs. That apart, it was demonstrated therein, that the land covered under the exemplar sale deed, was situated within one kilometer distance from the acquired land. She would submit that in the instant case also, Auto Nagar and the developed part of the municipality is within one kilometer of the claimant's lands and hence the sale value as shown in Exs. P.107 to P.109 are to be adopted. In our considered opinion, the said contention requires to be rejected on a mere reading of para 8 of the said judgment. It is apparent that it was not merely the nearness of the land, but also the developments surrounding the acquired land have been demonstrated. The Coordinate Bench found that the acquired land was in the vicinity of an oil mill, which was functioning for the last 15 years, a housing colony where 50 houses were already existing and that the lands were situated near the bus stand and a sugar factory was established within 5 kms. of the acquired property. 17. In our opinion, the claimant though has placed material in the form of photographs to show the existence of commercial buildings, nowhere the distance between buildings and the acquired land, is even whispered about. That apart, the very conversion orders, are suffice to show that the change of land use has been permitted much after the date of acquisition. Hence, the developments subsequent to the date of notification can by stretch of no imagination be taken into consideration to assess the market value of the acquired property. Hence, the reliance on the ruling is wholly misplaced and inapplicable in the facts of this case. 18. Nextly the Counsel for the appellant-claimant would submit that once the acquired lands are found to be within the municipal limits, the same must be treated as one with urban potential. In this regard, reliance is placed on the rulings of the Apex Court in the case reported in Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal AIR 2011 SC 2458 : 2011 (103) AIC 154 (SC), (2011) 6 SCC 47 , and reference is made to the observations of the Apex Court at paragraphs 49 to 53. Referring to the observations at para 49 she would contend that sale exemplars of small plots is also a permissible criterion. 19. Referring to the observations at para 49 she would contend that sale exemplars of small plots is also a permissible criterion. 19. She would further submit that as observed by the Apex Court in paragraph 50, the instant acquisition is also for a commercial purpose and hence the deduction should be not more than 10% of the determined market value. On the contrary, the findings of the Apex Court in paragraphs 51, 52, 81 and 82 answer the contention canvassed by the appellant-claimant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has rendered a categorical finding that the acquired lands were surrounded by well developed areas, which is not the case with the acquired lands, rather at the cost of being repetitive, there is no unimpeachable evidence with regard to development surrounding the lands. Neither is the distance nor the date on which the development took place is forthcoming in the evidence. Apart from stating that the lands are situate within the Municipal limits, no further particulars are forthcoming. 20. Counsel for the appellant-claimant placed reliance on the ruling reported in 2011 AIAR (Civil) 146 and would take the Court through para 10. From a reading of para 10, it is apparent that the Court even after observing that the acquired lands were within a distance of 1 km from railway station, bus stand, several residential colonies and several colleges, deemed it appropriate to approve deduction at 40%. At the cost of being repetitive, we have not come across any material which demonstrates any development in the vicinity of the acquired land as on the date of notification with the sole exception of the rice mill which had come up in 1994 and has not been an "agent provocateur" for development of the locality. 21. That apart, the photo of the rice mill produced at Ex. P.7 would show that the rice mill has fallen in disuse and is probably non-functional. Though the photo of the rice mill has been produced, interestingly the claimant has not produced photo of the acquired land or the area surrounding the acquired land. It must also be remembered that the photos are produced in 2015, whereas the acquisition is of the year 2009. Though a hand sketch is produced to demonstrate that a road is abutting the acquired land, no authenticate material or evidence is placed to demonstrate the same. 22. It must also be remembered that the photos are produced in 2015, whereas the acquisition is of the year 2009. Though a hand sketch is produced to demonstrate that a road is abutting the acquired land, no authenticate material or evidence is placed to demonstrate the same. 22. It is also an admitted fact that the acquired land lies behind the rice mill and it is the rice mill, which abuts the road. The onus was on the claimant to at least demonstrate accessibility to the land. As per the map produced no road is indicated in the village map and the various maps including the town map does not reflect as to what are the industries or commercial enterprises that have been established in the vicinity of the acquired land. Though it is vehemently contended that the lands are within the Municipal limits no material is placed on record to show as to whether the lands had been included within the Municipal limits prior to the date of acquisition of the lands or thereafter. Merely because the lands lie within the Municipal limits as on the date of recording of evidence would not in any manner allow the appellant to derive any advantage. On perusal of Ex. P.122 it is apparent that the lands of the claimants is lying in an area that is predominantly used for agriculture. The document reflects the date of issue as 12-1-2015, that is, the map reflects the developments as on the date of recording of evidence. Even after nearly 6 years after the notification, the map does not disclose the existence of any commercial buildings or residential colonies. As rightly found by the Trial Courts the developments are concentrated in the southern part of the town. In fact, the area, i.e. ward 10 would show the presence of five rice mills, one agricultural research station and APMC Yard. In fact, though in Ex. P.121, which is again issued on 12-1-2015, the areas in Ward 10 have been shown as proposed for residential purpose. There is absolutely not a single piece of evidence to show the formation of even a single residential layout in the vicinity of the acquired land. That apart, there is no evidence let in by the claimants to demonstrate as to whether the proposal has been implemented by the Local Planning Authority. Though in Ex. There is absolutely not a single piece of evidence to show the formation of even a single residential layout in the vicinity of the acquired land. That apart, there is no evidence let in by the claimants to demonstrate as to whether the proposal has been implemented by the Local Planning Authority. Though in Ex. P.121 the area in Autonagar is proposed as an industrial area. The evidence, more particularly Ex. P.70 to Ex. P.74, would show that though the layout is formed somewhere in the early nineties, the allotments continued even up to 2002. This by itself is reflective of the pace of development in the said locality and there is none surrounding the acquired land. The Counsel for the claimant places heavy reliance on the Exs. P.107 to P.109 which are sale deeds executed in the year 2008. On a combined examination and reading of Exs. P.107, P.108 and P.109 (Sale Deeds) and the Exs. P.121 and P.122 (map by the Local Planning Authority and the ward map of Gangavathi Town) would clearly demonstrate that the Prashanth Nagar is situated on Gangavathi-Koppal Highway and appears to be several kilometers away from the acquired lands. It is also pertinent to note that the maps indicate Prashanth Nagar as a well developed area and several housing sites (in all 40 sites) have been bought under three sale deeds and by a Corporate Giant having its office in Jam Nagar, Gujarat and the apparent reason is that the sites are abutting the Gangavathi-Koppal Highway, which the reference Court has noted as an area with fast paced developments. Ward 8 is far removed from Ward 10 and there is no evidence to demonstrate either the similarity in the nature of the lands or that the lands are similarly placed. 23. From the above discussion it is obvious that the sites covered under Exs. P.107 to P.109 are situated in a fully developed area and being abutting the highway they possessed commercial value and hence, have been purchased by a Corporate House and put to commercial use and even such sites have been sold at the rate of Rs. 550/- sq. ft. only and the maps disclose the presence of educational institutions etc. in the vicinity. Thereby, indicating that it is a fully developed area. 550/- sq. ft. only and the maps disclose the presence of educational institutions etc. in the vicinity. Thereby, indicating that it is a fully developed area. Despite the passage of nearly seven years, i.e. even as on the date of tendering evidence also, the claimants have not been able to demonstrate such development in the vicinity of the acquired lands. The word 'potential' implies inherent capacity to transform or achieve a higher level. 24. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents-beneficiary and the learned Addl. Advocate General, for the State, would vehemently contest the alleged potentiality of the acquired lands. It is contended that new railway tracks are normally laid in remote or outlying areas and are seldom laid in well developed areas as large tracts are required and the trains passing on the tracks cause noise of high decibels and cause fatal accidents also. It is also submitted that no developments take place along or on either side of the railway line, unlike on a highway which permits developments in between two destinations, like villages, towns or cities but in the case of railways development takes place only in and around railway stations which are points of embarkation or disembarkation. It is further contended that the presence of railway lines has never encouraged any developments. 25. It is submitted that the Munirabad-Mehaboob Nagar railway line was proposed on a cost sharing basis between the State Government and the Ministry of Railways and that the State Government has been releasing funds from time to time. That the 4(1) notification came to be issued on 30-7-2009. That the Deputy Commissioner after a detailed discussion with the land losers fixed the value of wet lands at Rs. 15.00 lakhs and semi irrigated lands are @ Rs. 8.00 lakhs per acre and dry lands at Rs. 6.00 lakhs per acre. The said rates were inclusive of all statutory benefits including interest and that consent awards have been passed pursuant to the settled rates. It is contended that apart from a miniscule number of land losers, the majority have accepted the negotiated rates representing the higher market value. 8.00 lakhs per acre and dry lands at Rs. 6.00 lakhs per acre. The said rates were inclusive of all statutory benefits including interest and that consent awards have been passed pursuant to the settled rates. It is contended that apart from a miniscule number of land losers, the majority have accepted the negotiated rates representing the higher market value. It is submitted that the very fact that vast majority of the land losers have accepted the rates is an indicator by itself that the said rates represent a true and fair market value and hence would contend that the contentions of the claimants that the lands possessed non-agricultural potential or commercial potential requires to be rejected. It is further contended that no material has been placed on record to demonstrate as to when the various developments have taken place. It is further contended that the acquired lands are situated a few kilometers away from the developed areas of the town. That the acquired lands are incomparable to the layout formed in Prashant Nagar as it lies abutting the highway. It is contended that the lands are surrounded by paddy fields and a couple of rice mills are present in the vicinity of the acquired lands. 26. From the above discussion, the following points arise for our consideration for disposal of the appeal: (i) Whether the determination of market price by the reference Court is in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1988 SC 1652 , (1988) 3 SCC 751 ? (ii) Whether the award is sustainable in the eye of law? Both points are taken up together for consideration. 27. At the outset, we address the preliminary issues raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants i.e. the binding nature of the judgment and award by a Coordinate Bench in MFA No. 544/1981, M.F.A. No. 25482/2012. The answer to this is not far to seek. The provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act pertaining to determination of market value mandates certain criteria to be determined for arrival of the market value. That apart, as stated supra the claimants are not able to demonstrate any similarity with the lands covered under the above said Misc. First Appeals. The provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act pertaining to determination of market value mandates certain criteria to be determined for arrival of the market value. That apart, as stated supra the claimants are not able to demonstrate any similarity with the lands covered under the above said Misc. First Appeals. Though in the course of argument it was contended that the acquired lands are lying within a kilometer of the lands covered under Exs. P.107 to P.109 there is no material to demonstrate the said fact. On the other hand, the material produced by the claimants themselves, more particularly, Exs. P.121 and P.122 clearly negates the contention. Reliance is placed on the rulings rendered by the Apex Court in the case of G.L. Batra v. State of Haryana and in the case of S. Kasi v. State through the Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District. The said rulings are relied upon to buttress her case that this Court cannot form a different opinion than the one formed by the Coordinate Bench in MFA No. 101828/2015 and MFA No. 101829/2015 wherein, the Coordinate Bench has fixed the market value @ Rs. 506/- per square foot and which awards have been satisfied. 28. On perusal of the aforesaid judgments it is seen that the said judgments have been rendered in the light of the findings recorded by the very same Bench in MFA No. 101827/2015. The reasons and the factors enumerated by the said Bench for concluding the market value at Rs. 506/- are found at paragraphs 5, 6, 10 and 11. From a reading of the same, it is apparent that in the said cases the Coordinate Bench was able to conclude from the evidence on record, that the acquired lands were surrounded by Cinema Theatres, police station, residential plots and lands that had already been converted to non-agricultural purposes. In the instant case, with exception of converted lands, we do not find any material to demonstrate such developments surrounding the acquired lands. Hence, the reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench is of no avail as there is no material on record to demonstrate similarity between the lands covered under the exemplar sale deeds and the claimants' lands. That apart we do not have any quarrel with the Coordinate Bench with regard to the principles of law adopted by it. Hence, the reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench is of no avail as there is no material on record to demonstrate similarity between the lands covered under the exemplar sale deeds and the claimants' lands. That apart we do not have any quarrel with the Coordinate Bench with regard to the principles of law adopted by it. Hence, the question of referring to a Larger Bench does not arise, consequently, the aforesaid rulings relied upon are inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In fact, the said rulings have been rendered in facts involving service jurisprudence and criminal jurisprudence. In matters pertaining to determination of market value the same is to be determined on the basis of facts established and evidence available on record in each case. Unless and until it is positively demonstrated by facts and evidence that the lands are of comparable nature or similarly situated, it is impermissible to fix the market on the basis of unrelated awards. 29. It is well-known that in the matter of acquisition of lands for laying of railway lines, huge tracts of land are involved the lands acquired are in small parcels. Normally, only small bits of land in each survey number is acquired and the pieces of lands are required to be contiguous and runs for hundreds of kilometers. This peculiar fact makes it mandatory for the claimants to demonstrate the similarity amongst the different lands which are sought to be compared. Unlike in other acquisitions, for formation of industrial or residential layouts, the lands acquired for laying a railway lines are not in compact block but stretch over several hundreds of kilometers in a contiguous manner. It is also pertinent to note that unlike the highways, which permits development between two destination on either side of the road, the laying of railway line is not a fore runner for development between two destinations or in other words two railway stations or on either side of the railway tracts. It is common knowledge that the trains can halt only at designated stations and hence, the laying of a railway line and laying of a road are incomparable. In fact, a single railway line/rail route can pass through Metro's, Cities, Towns, Villages, Forests, ravines, deserts, hills, across rivers etc. stretching over a thousand kilometers. It is common knowledge that the trains can halt only at designated stations and hence, the laying of a railway line and laying of a road are incomparable. In fact, a single railway line/rail route can pass through Metro's, Cities, Towns, Villages, Forests, ravines, deserts, hills, across rivers etc. stretching over a thousand kilometers. If that be the fact, would it be prudent to adopt and fix the same market price for all the lands involved in the acquisition, as there is no apparent similarity in the nature of lands acquired. There can be no doubt, that all the lands, of whatever nature and wherever situated would have to lie as a contiguous stretch, though separated by hundred's of kilometers. In such a scenario, can it be gainfully argued that the price paid to the land at the point of the first kilometer, has to be paid to the land at the point of the hundredth kilometer and merely because they form part of the same acquisition? In our considered opinion the answer should be a definite 'no'. We can safely presume that the topography of the land and the attendant developments can never be the same over a distance of a hundred kilometers. It is also a common knowledge that developments can occur only over hospitable terrain and hence the lands which are subjected to acquisition for a project like laying of railway lines has to be viewed differently and we are of the considered opinion that it is imperative for the claimant to independently demonstrate the market value of his land with the exception being a prior determination of market value, in respect of a similarly placed land and which lies in the close vicinity of the attendant developments and the claimants' lands. 30. It is relevant to note that in the determination of the market value, it is not merely the provisions of Section 23 of the Act that are to be taken into consideration by the Reference Court but also the prohibitions enumerated in Section, 24 of the Act and in the instant case, the same have not been appreciated by the Reference Court. It is the experience of this Court that these prohibitions have been pointedly ignored while assessing the market value. It is the experience of this Court that these prohibitions have been pointedly ignored while assessing the market value. In fact, the instant case is a classic example where the claimants have placed voluminous material but their evidentiary value has been lost as the claimants have miserably failed to demonstrate the first factor under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. 31. The Reference Court, in our opinion, has proceeded to assess the value by adopting the consensual rates as the basis without even there being a discussion as to whether the lands are wet lands or whether they are irrigated by borewell or they are dry lands. The Reference Court has merely noted that the lands in question are agricultural lands. The Reference Court was not powerless and in our opinion, could have given a quietus to the issue had it exercised the powers vested in it. Section 53 of the Act confers on the Reference Court, the powers available to a Civil Court, by making the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), applicable to the proceedings to the Court under Act 1894. In other words, if that be so, the Reference Court could have very well invoked the provisions of Rule 14 of Order XVI of the CPC. In our opinion, this exercise was not optional but mandatory on the Reference Court when funds of the public exchequer are involved or when the acquisition of land is for a public purpose, as in the instant case. The provisions of Rule 14 of Order XVI of the CPC, confers wide powers on the Court to summon and examine any person, whom it considers as a necessary witness, i.e., summon any person, who can throw light on the issues being adjudicated by the Court. The provisions of Rule 15 of Order XVI of CPC, makes it mandatory upon such person to appear and depose or produce such document. Rule 17 of Order XVI of CPC, makes the provisions of Rules 10 to 13 applicable to such persons summoned as witness. Rules 10 to 13 apparently vests coercive powers and the penal consequences that can be imposed by the Court in the event of the summoned person failing to comply with the command of the Court. 32. Rule 17 of Order XVI of CPC, makes the provisions of Rules 10 to 13 applicable to such persons summoned as witness. Rules 10 to 13 apparently vests coercive powers and the penal consequences that can be imposed by the Court in the event of the summoned person failing to comply with the command of the Court. 32. In the instant case, the Reference Court, in our opinion, ought to have summoned the Chief Executive Officer/Chief Officer of the Gangavathi Town Municipality to throw light upon the fact as to when the lands were incorporated into the municipal limits and also to speak about any development works carried out by the municipality in the said ward, whether the lands have been assessed to Municipal Tax, whether development or Betterment Charges have been collected from the landowners, whether any Industries or commercial entities or Educational Institutions or commercial buildings have been permitted in the area surrounding the acquired lands and also the date on which such permissions have been granted. The Reference Court ought to have summoned the Competent Officer of the Public Works Department and examined him with regard to the distance between the exemplar sites and the acquired lands. It could have also directed the Public Works Department to furnish Distance Certificate between the various developments relied upon by the claimants. This is merely illustrative and there are large number of departments like the Forest Department, Highways Department, Horticultural Department, Agricultural Universities, technical experts like Engineers, etc., who can be called upon to assist the Reference Court. Such an exercise, in our considered opinion, would have dissipated the controversy and armed the Court with concrete material to proceed further and adjudicate the acquired lands' true market value. We deem such an exercise mandatory as it is a known fact that not all litigants can afford the services of the best of the professionals and gullible litigants also cannot be ruled. As repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the cause and the purpose of the Courts is to serve and uphold the truth and do justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam and Others AIR 2012 SC 2010 : 2012 (114) AIC 221 (SC), (2012) 6 SCC 430 , has in paragraph 43, stated certain principles that are required to be followed by the Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam and Others AIR 2012 SC 2010 : 2012 (114) AIC 221 (SC), (2012) 6 SCC 430 , has in paragraph 43, stated certain principles that are required to be followed by the Court. Paragraphs 43.1 to 43.5 reads as under: "43.1 It is the bounden duty of the Court to uphold the truth and do justice. ......... 43.3 The ultimate object of the judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other presentations before the Court should be truthful. 43.4 Once the Court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion, obstruction or confusion in pleadings and documents, the Court should in addition to full restitution impose appropriate costs. The Court must ensure that there is no incentive for wrongdoer in the temple of justice. Truth is the foundation of justice and it has to be the common endeavour of all to uphold the truth and no one should be permitted to pollute the stream of justice. 43.5 It is the bounden obligation of the Court to neutralise any unjust and/or undeserved benefit or advantage obtained by abusing the judicial process." 33. From a reading of the above, our opinion regarding summoning of witnesses is further fortified by the above observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Reference Court cannot place blind reliance on the material placed before it. It is duty-bound to examine the truthfulness and/or correctness of the evidence placed before it. The reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Union of India v. Bal Ram, : AIR 2004 SC 3981 , is of no avail to the claimants. Reliance is placed on the above ruling to contend that it would be unfair to discriminate between landowners merely on the ground that they are lying in different villages. The answer to the proposition also lies in the very decision. The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to uphold the finding of the High Court as it found that the High Court had examined and concluded with regard to the nature and quality of the lands and had held that the lands though lying in different villages were identical and similar. In the instant case neither is such a case pleaded nor material evidence let in to demonstrate the same. 34. In the instant case neither is such a case pleaded nor material evidence let in to demonstrate the same. 34. In the instant case, reliance is placed on the sale value of commercial sites abutting the highway. The said exemplars have been rightly rejected by the Reference Court. In the instant case, we have concluded on the basis of Exhibits P.121 and P.122 that the distance between the lands in Ward No. 8 and lands in Ward No. 10 are several kilometers apart. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the developed lands abutting the highway are similar and identical in nature with the acquired lands. The reliance on the decision rendered in Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and Others AIR 2006 SC 447 : 2006 (88) AIC 533 (SC) 2005 (8) SCI 86, (Appeal (Civil) Nos. 3343-3554/1999) is also of no avail to the claimants as in the said case, though a vast extent of 3500.33 acres comprised in five villages were notified for acquisition, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that the lands constituted a single block and there was little to choose between one stretch of land and another and all the lands were capable of being developed in the same manner and evidence of such nature is conspicuously absent in the instant case. The ruling reported in Ali Mohammad Beigh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 2017 SC 1518 2017 (174) AIC 69 (SC), (2017) 4 SCC 717 , does not advance the case of the claimants. A reading of paragraph 12 of the said ruling would show that the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with a case of lands that are more or less situated nearby and are lands that are identical and similar, which is not so in the case on hand. 35. The reliance on the ruling reported in The Assistant Commissioner, Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarga v. Smt. Kursheed Begum, 2003 (5) Kar. L.J. 421 (DB), would also be of no help to the claimants as a reading of paragraph No. 6 of the said ruling clearly demonstrates that the Court was dealing with the case where the market value of the adjacent land had already been appreciated and determined by the High Court. Potentiality is a factor that has to be demonstrated by adducing cogent evidence in that regard. Potentiality is a factor that has to be demonstrated by adducing cogent evidence in that regard. Potentiality of the land cannot be adjudged on the basis of conjectures and surmises. 36. In the instant case, the Reference Court erred in making the Consent Award as the basis and whimsically adding another 25%/10% and further granting statutory benefits. The Reference Court could not have adopted the Consent Award as the Consent Award is inclusive of all statutory benefits. The Reference Court could not have adopted the Consent Award as the basis without there being consent of the claimants. 37. The learned Counsel for the beneficiary has placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, (1988) 3 SCC 751 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court postulated certain parameters, which are to be adopted by the Reference Court as permanent markers in their endeavour to determine the true market value and it would not be out of place to reproduce the postulates as laid down in paragraph 4. It reads as under: "4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen.-- (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the Trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an Appellate Court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land). (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account: (1) if they are very proximate; (2) genuine; and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations.-- (i) proximity from time angle; (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis. land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors: Plus Factors Minus Factors 1.smallness of size 1. Largeness of area 2.Proximity to a road 2. Situation in their interior at a distance from the road 3.frontage on a road 3. Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth 4.nerarness to developed area 4. Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled u 5. regular shape 5. remoteness from developed locality 6. level vis-à-vis land under acquisition 6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds. cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10,000 sq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense." 38. The impugned award has given a complete go by to the parameters stipulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as noted supra. The sentence "The following factors must be etched on the mental screen" is not a hollow pronouncement. It reflects the force, the Apex Court has attached to the postulates/parameters laid down by it. Thereby rendering mandatory and Reference Court giving a go-bye to it, is liable to be construed as a contumacious act. Further, learned Counsel has placed reliance on three judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India and Others v. Mangatu Ram and Others AIR 1997 SC 2704 , (1997) 6 SCC 59 . The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 have a bearing in the case on hand. The same are reproduced for the sake of convenience: "3. The question that arises for consideration is whether the view of the High Court in not making any belting and granting uniform rate of compensation for all the lands is correct principle of law. We find that the High Court has adopted absolutely incorrect principle of law. It is seen that several fake deeds have been filed, in particular as per Ex. BA spoken through P.W. 3, 16.7 kanals of land were sold for Rs. 1,40,000. We find that the High Court has adopted absolutely incorrect principle of law. It is seen that several fake deeds have been filed, in particular as per Ex. BA spoken through P.W. 3, 16.7 kanals of land were sold for Rs. 1,40,000. It is settled legal position that it is the duty of the Court to sit in the armchair of a willing and prudent purchaser and seek answer to the question whether he would purchase the lands offered for sale with the existing features, at the same market value proposed by the Court. It is also settled law that though determination involves some guesswork, it must have reasonable basis and feats of imagination should be eschewed. It is the salutary duty of the Court to award reasonable and adequate compensation. The plan has been placed before us. The Land Acquisition Officer has marked the lands classified as 'A' in red colour and 'B' class lands in green colour. 4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the belting is necessary in the circumstances of these cases. When a large extent of land under acquisition comprises lands of several persons and some lands are abutting the main road and some lands are in the interior, the same would not have the uniform rate of market value. Necessarily, reasonable demarcation/classification should be made before determination of the compensation. Accordingly, we justified the classification of the lands into Categories 'A' and 'B'. The Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned the total extent of the land in his respective awards. Since the lands are admittedly abutting the Delhi-Hissar National Highway bypass, the same would necessarily be granted a higher market value than the lands situated in the interior. Accordingly, we are of the view that the lands situated around 500 yards from the main road should be classified as 'A' Class lands irrespective of the quality of the land, i.e., whether it is Nehari, Chahi, Banjar Quadim, Banjar Jadid or Gair Mumkin, the uniform rate of compensation at Rs. 1,00,000 per acre would be granted to such lands. For the rest of the 'A' Class lands, the compensation would be at Rs. 60,000 per acre. Banjar Quadim, Banjar Jadid and Gair Mumkin lands are classified as 'B' Class lands and for that land, the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per acre would be reasonable, just and adequate compensation. 5. xxx 6. For the rest of the 'A' Class lands, the compensation would be at Rs. 60,000 per acre. Banjar Quadim, Banjar Jadid and Gair Mumkin lands are classified as 'B' Class lands and for that land, the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per acre would be reasonable, just and adequate compensation. 5. xxx 6. It is equally settled law that Article 14 has no application vis-a-vis. determination of the compensation for the obvious reason that it is hardly possible that all the lands are equal in all respects; they differ from one another and bear different features, e.g., nature, quality and character; therefore, all the lands do not command the same market value when they are sold to a willing purchaser by a willing vendor in the open market." (emphasis supplied) This is exactly the exercise that the Reference Court was required to execute in the light of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 39. The Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically settled the issue of application of Article 14 of the Constitution vis-a-vis., the determination of compensation. The beneficiary has also placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. G. Mohan Reddy and Another, (2010) 15 SCC 412 . A useful reference of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 9 of the said judgment can be made. The touchstone for the methodology adopted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, was the nearness to the highway. It is factors like these that need to be considered while exercising the discretion of guesswork by the Reference Court. The 'guestimation' cannot be arbitrary but with reference to a particular factor and the evidence let in, demonstrating that factor. Further, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of its judgment reported in Haryana State Agricultural Market Board v. Krishan Kumar : AIR 2011 SC 2540 : VI (2011) SLT 684, (2011) 15 SCC 297 , reads as under: "9. Normally it is not safe to proceed on the basis of circle rates or Collector's rates, as they are broad assessments which may or may not be based on proper scientific survey and verification. Normally it is not safe to proceed on the basis of circle rates or Collector's rates, as they are broad assessments which may or may not be based on proper scientific survey and verification. However, in this case, not only the Reference Court and the High Court, but also the parties have relied upon the evidence of P.W. 6 as evidence of the market value. P.W. 6 gave the circle rate for agricultural lands, for residential plots, and for commercial plots of Ganaur. He stated that the Collector's rate for agricultural land was Rs. 3,40,000/- per acre, Rs. 225/- to Rs. 425/- per square yard for residential plots and Rs. 850/- to Rs. 1275/- per square yard for commercial plots. It is well-settled that the market value has to be determined with reference to comparable lands and with reference to comparable sales, if available. The commercial plots are not comparable to the acquired lands. Insofar as small residential plots abutting the main road leading to G.T. Road, they cannot obviously be applied directly without any deductions to arrive at the value of undeveloped agricultural land even if the acquired lands may be situated immediately near the town outskirts. 10. It is now well-settled that if the value of small developed plots should be the basis, appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the area to be used for roads, drains and common facilities like park, open space, etc. Thereafter, further deduction will have to be made towards the cost of development, that is, the cost of levelling the land, cost of laying roads and drains, and the cost of drawing electrical, water and sewer lines. 11. Having regard to the fact that the acquired lands were in a semi-developed area within the Ganaur municipal limits, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to apply an aggregate deduction of 45% from the value of residential plots (towards the land for development and the cost of development) to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands. The High Court has taken the highest of the rates for residential plots. Such a rate will apply to residential plots in developed layouts adjoining the main road, in prime areas. There is no evidence to show the situation of the plots which fetched Rs. 425/- per square yard and situation of the plots which fetched Rs. The High Court has taken the highest of the rates for residential plots. Such a rate will apply to residential plots in developed layouts adjoining the main road, in prime areas. There is no evidence to show the situation of the plots which fetched Rs. 425/- per square yard and situation of the plots which fetched Rs. 225/- per square yard. In the absence of any evidence, the deduction of 45% should be made from Rs. 225/- per square yard which necessarily will apply to residential plots in outlying areas like the acquired lands. Therefore the market value will be Rs. 225/- less 45% per square yard, that is, Rs. 140/- per square yard or Rs. 6,77,600/- per acre." As noted supra by the Apex Court, in the instant case also the lands are situated in predominantly agricultural zone. 40. The beneficiary has also placed reliance on the ruling of Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 580 : 1977 (1) SCR 329 , (1977) 1 SCC 330 , with particular reference to the observations in paragraphs 4 and 5. 41. In support of their contention that the Reference Court has miserably failed to adopt an approach as sanctioned by law, the beneficiary has also placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Special Deputy Collector and Others v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Others AIR 1997 SC 2625 , (1997) 6 SCC 41 . This is apparently in riposte to the claimant's contention that burden lies on the acquiring authority to demonstrate the value of the land and they having not let in any evidence, it is not open to canvas against the material placed on record by the claimants. Lastly, the beneficiary has placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Dyagala Devamma and Others 2018 (189) AIC 81 (SC), AIR 2018 SC 3511 . In paragraphs 19 and 20, the Hon'ble Apex Court has recounted the principles settled in Chimanlal Hargovinddas case (supra). In paragraph 21, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the indispensable nature of the principles. In paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the issue with regard to deductions and the reasonableness of the guesswork approach. In paragraphs 19 and 20, the Hon'ble Apex Court has recounted the principles settled in Chimanlal Hargovinddas case (supra). In paragraph 21, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the indispensable nature of the principles. In paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the issue with regard to deductions and the reasonableness of the guesswork approach. In paragraph 23, the Hon'ble Apex Court has gone into the issue of nature of the land and in paragraph 24, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to uphold the deduction as settled by the Reference Court and in fact found fault with the High Court for not assigning any reason for reducing the percentage of deduction. In short it is a comprehensive restatement and reiteration of the settled law. 42. We have been coming across innumerable cases where the exercise of determination of the market value by the Reference Court resemble flights of fancy and the exercise is completed by throwing to the winds the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the law enunciated in that regard. Such an approach cannot be condoned and in fact is a contumacious act. The principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court is the Holy 'book for the Courts and there can be no legitimate excuse for disobedience of the same and such acts must be frowned upon by the High Court on its Administrative side. The principle that the market value is a price that prudent purchaser would pay, is no more res Integra and is well-settled and as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is the duty of the Reference Court to sit in the arm chair of the prospective purchaser and assess the value. 43. In the instant case, this Court finds the said exercise amiss. In the instant case, merely because the Reference Court brushed aside all other evidence, will not have the licence to place reliance on the amounts fixed under the Consent Award and make it as a basis for its guesswork. In this regard, we place reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court rendered in Manoj Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others 2018 (184) AIC 176 (SC), (2018) 13 SCC 96 . In this regard, we place reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court rendered in Manoj Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others 2018 (184) AIC 176 (SC), (2018) 13 SCC 96 . In our considered opinion, the said ruling is a candle to the both the High Court and the Reference Court in the matter of determination of market value. The Hon'ble Apex Court has strongly disapproved the method of blindly following earlier awards. The Hon'ble Apex Court has comprehensively addressed various issues arising in the matters pertaining to determination of market value. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the Court has to apply its judicial mind and is not supposed to follow the previous Award without due consideration of the facts and attendant circumstances and the evidence in the case. It is further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that previous Awards and judgments are akin to piece of evidence on par with comparative sale transactions and similarity of the land covered by the previous judgment/award is required to be proved like any other comparative exemplar. It further held that when the previous award/judgment is based on an exemplar, which is not similar, the previous award/judgment would not be binding. It further held that an Award, which is borne out of a mistake cannot be followed on the ground of parity. 44. In the light of the above discussion, a few facts that we have noticed are necessary to be stated here. It is not in dispute that Gangavathi and Sindhanur areas are predominantly paddy growing areas and are developing into the rice granary of the state. In fact, a perusal of Exhibits P.121 and P.122, fortify this conclusion of ours. The map discloses the presence of several rice mills and the only other industry is yet again an agro-based industry. There is no evidence of the establishment of any industrial units or an industry in the core sector. It is the Industries in the core sector that encourage migration from the areas surrounding the said industry, in view of the promise of employment and its potential to act as a catalyst and it is also a fact that it is such Industries that employ labour in huge numbers. 45. It is the Industries in the core sector that encourage migration from the areas surrounding the said industry, in view of the promise of employment and its potential to act as a catalyst and it is also a fact that it is such Industries that employ labour in huge numbers. 45. In the instant case, though several instances of conversion of lands are placed, the conversions are sought for the purpose of establishing a single unit. No evidence of establishment of any industry that generates mass employment or formation of housing layouts or industrial hubs is placed before the Court. There is no evidence to demonstrate any commercial potentiality. In fact, a part of Sy. No. 139 was converted way back in the year 1994, for the purpose of establishing rice mill. This, coupled with the fact that the remaining portion has also now come within the municipal area, ought to have acted as a stimulus for development, viz., like housing colonies, commercial malls, theatre, etc., but this Court does not find any material evidencing development of such nature. On the contrary, the lands continue to retain the same features. The very fact that despite conversion of the land in the year 1994, the absence of development in the surrounding lands is an indicator that the region is predominantly, agricultural in nature. "Development" is a fact that is required to be proved with the aid of cogent evidence, which evidence is found wanting. 46. We have come across several awards bereft of factual details, like date of the Notification, the date of final notification and the date of taking possession all of which are crucial for appreciating as to whether the reference petitions are maintainable in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Laxuman. Further, as discussed supra, we find that the Reference Court act like a caged bird and as if the hands of the Presiding Officer is fettered. Hence, we deem it necessary and appropriate to issue the following directions. 47. The Reference Courts shall mandatorily make a statement of facts and detail therein the date of preliminary acquisition, the date of final notification, the date of award, the date of taking possession and the date of the protest petition, if any filed. Hence, we deem it necessary and appropriate to issue the following directions. 47. The Reference Courts shall mandatorily make a statement of facts and detail therein the date of preliminary acquisition, the date of final notification, the date of award, the date of taking possession and the date of the protest petition, if any filed. The Reference Courts shall also look in and state if the party have entered into a consent Award. 48. The Reference Court shall not adopt mere guesswork alone as the method for determining the market value. 49. The Reference Court, in the event of the failure by the parties to place satisfactory evidence, shall exercise the powers vested in the Civil Court under Order XVI, Rules 14 and 15 of CPC, to summon such official and departmental witnesses as are competent to speak and produce records that would aid the Reference Court in determining the true and correct market value. The Registrar General to forthwith circulate the above directions to all the Courts dealing with Reference cases arising out of acquisition proceedings. 50. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the Awards and remit the matter for reconsideration with opportunities to the parties to let in evidence in the nature indicated. 51. The appeals by the Claimants in M.F.A. No. 103193/2015, MFA No. 103251/2015 and MFA No. 103252/2015 for enhancement are rejected and the appeals by the Beneficiary in MFA No. 101872/2016, MFA No. 101877/2016 and MFA No. 101876/2016 are partly allowed and the matters are remitted back to the Reference Court for consideration and while reconsidering, the Reference Court shall bear in mind the observations made hereinabove and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of the appeals being remitted to the Reference Court, the Registry shall look into the same and refund such admissible Court fee. In respect of the amount withdrawn by the claimants, the claimants shall furnish such surety to the satisfaction of the Reference Court and in the event of any award the amounts already paid shall be adjusted towards the amount if any due. If the amounts with claimant is in excess the same shall be refunded by the claimant within one month of the award. Office to draw up - decree accordingly.